Set Active Selection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains key behaviors: modes (add/replace), clear flag ignoring other fields, and that the first object becomes active. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention prerequisites like having an active document.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, selection management) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering all key behaviors. However, it could mention the return value (likely none) or prerequisites (e.g., active document) for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, explaining that the first object in 'objects' becomes active, mode applies to objects, and clear overrides other parameters. This helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: to replace or extend the active document's selection. It specifies multiple selection methods (objects, tag, material) and modes, distinguishing it from siblings like get_selection and set_mesh_selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (changing selection) and explains modes and the clear flag. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context of siblings helps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.